Radeon Pro 560X vs Quadro M5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000 with Radeon Pro 560X, including specs and performance data.
M5000 outperforms Pro 560X by a whopping 156% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 281 | 532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.32 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.52 | 9.01 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 16 July 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 861 MHz | 1004 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 132.9 | 64.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.252 TFLOPS | 2.056 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | 256 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 100−110
+144%
| 41
−144%
|
| 1440p | 100−110
+133%
| 43
−133%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+135%
| 17
−135%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 28.57 | no data |
| 1440p | 28.57 | no data |
| 4K | 71.42 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M5000 and Pro 560X compete in popular games:
- Quadro M5000 is 144% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M5000 is 133% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M5000 is 135% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.48 | 8.79 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 16 July 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M5000 has a 155.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro 560X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
